Meeting minutes
ACT Standup
ACT chairs here to discuss communication
wilco: worked on AG feedback
Kathy: back from vacay
Trevor: pull requests, AG feedback, subjective applicability
Chris: ACT rules, AG work with Wilco in Github, unaccessible name changes
<ChrisLoiselle> Catherine: Completed pull request in GitHub
Catherine: pull request
Tom: ARIA parent child
Daniel: pull requests, planning meeting, PR publication website
Disconnect of communication between CG and TF
<Wilco> act-rules/
Wilco: CG and ACT communication disconnect. CG chairs here today for a open conversation on areas where we can improve.
Jean Yves Moyen: secondary requirements communication and discussion in Github. where feels doesn't work is when there's a change after a review. loses context because discussion in task force but loses context in github. ACT skimming over problem to solve??
agrees with Jean Yves, loses context in github. wilco and kathy typically attending CG meetings and difficult for just the two to bring all the info from ACT
Trevor: when AcT does rule reviews, notes at the bottom of spreadsheet aren't detailed enough. need to add the Why instead of just the What.
Jean-Yves: spreadsheet not linked. when link to the spreadsheet was added, that helped. put a link to the spreadsheet in the pull request on regular basis.
wilco: all the information should be in the spreadsheet. good to include link to spreadsheet in pull request.
Jean-Yves: link to spreadsheet should be sufficient. no need to copy and paste from the spreadsheet.
Helen: bit of an issue with scribing. at times, scribed notes are not saved sometimes. level of detail is different with each different scriber. need to add more details in the spreadsheet.
<ChrisLoiselle> I see https://
Wilco: assign a liaison before going to review and he/she necessary for noting changes
<ChrisLoiselle> +1 to Trevor's idea
Trevor: take task force conclusion on the bottom and split in two parts and have "what is the change?" "why?"
wilco: link sheet in pull requests. More detail at bottom. Good?
Jean-Yves: yes
Tom: maybe hide sheets and not delete. There are times need to go back to refer
Daniel: agree
Daniel: address Task Force attendees at the CG meetings
Jean-Yves: just need a summary of important parts of task force meetings. point is they should not depend on the task force people to give the details in the meeting. The details should be in the spreadsheet.
wilco: would it help if the two CG would be invited to the planning meetings (weekly 30 min)?
Jean-Yves: probably not necessary. planning meeting is not where the discussion of "why" happens.
Wilco: should we have another joint meeting?
Jean-Yves: no, not necessary with TPAC and summer
Kathy: some resolution put in the spreadsheet but later a change may take place. does CG want to comment and be aware of decision before changes take place?
Jean-Yves: this would be beneficial. but realizes it would add extra work and heavy process so not sure it's necessary. in the end, we end up agreeing anyway.
Wilco: straight pull request is typically fine. Except for those controversial issues.
Jean-Yves: maybe just a joint meeting or agenda item in a meeting is all it takes. just need to talk if there is a problem.
Kathy: ok with that
Daniel: maybe try and see if works before closing... There is potential risk of extra work as well if there is not enough discussion before TF people start working on their PRs.
reconnected
Wilco: closing issue. CG chairs will let us know if need to discuss further.
Daniel: ok with that
Responses to AGWG feedback
<Wilco> https://
Wilco: opened 3 issues. chairs asked to come up with response as to why not resolving. first post is feedback, second post is response. if happy, give a thumbs up. will look at this next week.
Subjective exceptions in the applicability
<trevor> https://
Trevor: when writing rules, are applicability subjective/objective. avoid this or make common practice? so trying to identify subjectivity examples
Trevor cont: thoughts?
Wilco: doesn't see anything problematic
Trevor: 3rd one is a little more difficult. if break down, would be nice
Trevor: first 2 are good
Wilco: non-text content more difficult
Wilco: ok to use in some areas but not others. If can be more explicit (like image elements), you should be. but if not, then it's non-text content. need to rephrase of "decorative" and "not human language". like it better in expectation and applicability
trevor: lost audio again
reconnected
trevor: put in applicability
<trevor> https://
wilco: instead of non-text, use purely decorative and ??
Carlos: good if can classify subjectivity and include in other area